|
|
|
I WOULD READ THIS POST IF YE LIVE IN THE USA..Lawsuits galore against Sony over rootkit; RIAA head doesn't get it
|
|
|
ireland
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2005 @ 08:35 |
Link to this message
|
Lawsuits galore against Sony over rootkit; RIAA head doesn't get it
11/21/2005 4:29:54 PM, by Hannibal
The ongoing Sony rootkit fiasco just keeps getting better. Last week brought news of a round of high-profile lawsuits against Sony by a number of parties. First, up was a class-action lawsuit against Sony filed in California by attorneys seeking damages under at least three relevant CA laws. There's also a national lawsuit in the works that will be filed in NYC.
Today, a new front in the legal blowback against Sony opened up with the news that the Attorney General for the state of Texas is suing Sony for violating the state's anti-spyware laws. From the AG's press release on the suit:
"Sony has engaged in a technological version of cloak and dagger deceit against consumers by hiding secret files on their computers," said Attorney General Abbott. "Consumers who purchased a Sony CD thought they were buying music. Instead, they received spyware that can damage a computer, subject it to viruses and expose the consumer to possible identity crime."
Texas is asking for civil penalties of $100,000 per violation, along with reimbursement for all lawsuit-related expenses. At those rates, a few million violations here and a few million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. They'll never get an award this large, and if they do it's not likely to hold up on appeal, but even a fraction of that could work out to a pretty sizable chunk of money.
I expect that other states with similar anti-spyware and consumer protection measures on the books will join the lawsuit frenzy. Sony's unbelievably dismissive initial public statements on the fiasco are going to provide great fodder for plaintiffs' attorneys, and in that respect Sony has taken a bad situation and made it that much worse for themselves.
Speaking of unbelievable public statements, get a load of RIAA chief Cary Sherman's recent remarks on the rootkit fiasco [emphasis added]:
Columbia University, Columbia Spectator: With fears of illegal file sharing throughout the music industry, many companies have taken measures into their own hands. Within the last two weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about Sony BMG's rootkit program. Does the RIAA condone such actions on the part of individual companies to protect their profits?
Cary Sherman: There is nothing unusual about technology being used to protect intellectual property. You can't simply make an extra copy of a Microsoft operating system, or virtually any other commercially-released software program for that matter. Same with videogames. Movies, too, are protected. Why should CDs be any different?
The problem with the SonyBMG situation is that the technology they used contained a security vulnerability of which they were unaware. They have apologized for their mistake, ceased manufacture of CDs with that technology,and pulled CDs with that technology from store shelves. Seems very responsible to me. How many times that software applications created the same problem? Lots. I wonder whether they've taken as aggressive steps as SonyBMG has when those vulnerabilities were discovered, or did they just post a patch on the Internet?
One other thing to point out: The music industry has been more permissive about copying of its copyrighted product than virtually any other industry. How many burns are you allowed of a movie? None. How many of a videogame? None. You get the idea. Even the CDs with content protection allow consumers to burn 3 copies or so for personal use. The idea is not to inhibit personal use, but to allow personal use but discourage (not prevent, you can never prevent) copying well beyond personal use.
Ah, I see... so the only thing Sony did wrong was they installed a rootkit with a security hole in it! If the rootkit would've been secure, then it would've been perfectly acceptable for them to lie to consumers, violate various anti-spyware laws, and install a secret back door on millions of personal and business machines.
Here's a (only halfway facetious) question: why do Sony and the RIAA hate America? Seriously. I hope nobody who works in critical infrastructure popped that rootkit-infected Ray Charles CD into the wrong networked computer. I mean, I realize that when you buy a pirated movie or CD you may be supporting terrorists, but now Sony has fixed it to where you could possibly support them by buying a legitimate CD off the shelf. What's a security conscious consumer to do, except maybe turn to P2P networks?
Anyway, regardless of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek tone here, networked security threats are a serious national security issue, and any kind of overt, deliberate corporate involvement in this kind of thing deserves the closest scrutiny by federal lawmakers. But of course, I don't really expect that certain congressmen will protest Sony's actions too loudly, seeing as how they have flat-out openly endorsed exactly this kind of vigilante anti-consumer hacking. Let's hear from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-*AA), because I just can't resist reproducing this famous quote:
you got to love this guy,NOT
his web site
http://hatch.senate.gov/
[Senator Hatch] 
said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions, he said.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
It sounds like Sony's little rootkit tactic has friends in high places. No wonder they were unrepentant about it at first. I suppose we should all just be grateful that Sony didn't decide to destroy any machines on which they found unlicensed music or movies.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051121-5605.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. November 2005 @ 09:13
|
|
ireland
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2005 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
Orrin Hatch, Software Pirate?
[Print story] [E-mail story] [Rants + Raves]
Page 1 of 1
By Leander Kahney | Also by this reporter
11:56 AM Jun. 19, 2003 PT
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.
"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."
Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.
Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
Any such technology would be in violation of federal antihacking laws. The senator, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Congress would have to make copyright holders exempt from current laws for them to legally destroy people's computers.
On Wednesday, Hatch clarified his comments, but stuck by the original idea. "I do not favor extreme remedies -- unless no moderate remedies can be found," he said in a statement. "I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies."
Just as well. Because if Hatch's terminator system embraced software as well as music, his servers would be targeted for destruction.
Milonic Solutions' JavaScript code used on Hatch's website costs $900 for a site-wide license. It is free for personal or nonprofit use, which the senator likely qualifies for.
However, the software's license stipulates that the user must register the software to receive a licensing code, and provide a link in the source code to Milonic's website.
On Wednesday, the senator's site met none of Milonic's licensing terms. The site's source code (which can be seen by selecting Source under the View menu in Internet Explorer) had neither a link to Milonic's site nor a registration code.
However, by Thursday afternoon Hatch's site had been updated to contain some of the requisite copyright information. An old version of the page can be seen by viewing Google's cache of the site.
"They're using our code," Woolley said Wednesday. "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."
When contacted Thursday, Woolley said the company that maintains the senator's site had e-mailed Milonic to begin the registration process. Woolley said the code added to Hatch's site after the issue came to light met some -- but not all -- of Milonic's licensing requirements.
Before the site was updated, the source code on Hatch's site contained the line: "* i am the license for the menu (duh) *"
Woolley said he had no idea where the line came from -- it has nothing to do with him, and he hadn't seen it on other websites that use his menu system.
"It looks like it's trying to cover something up, as though they got a license," he said.
A spokesman in Hatch's office on Wednesday responded, "That's ironic" before declining to put Wired News in contact with the site's webmaster. He deferred comment on the senator's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did not return calls.
The apparent violation was discovered by Laurence Simon, an unemployed system administrator from Houston, who was poking around Hatch's site after becoming outraged by his comments.
Milonic's Woolley said the senator's unlicensed use of his software was just "the tip of the iceberg." He said he knows of at least two other senators using unlicensed copies of his software, and many big companies.
Continental Airlines, for example, one of the largest airlines in the United States, uses Woolley's system throughout its Continental.com website. Woolley said the airline has not paid for the software. Worse, the copyright notices in the source code have been removed.
"That really pisses me off," he said.
A spokesman for Continental said the airline would look into the matter.
Woolley makes his living from his software. Like a lot of independent programmers, he struggles to get people to conform to his licensing terms, let alone pay for his software.
"We don't want blood," he said. "We just want payment for the hard work we do. We work very, very hard. If they're not prepared to pay, they're software pirates."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html
But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.
|
|
ireland
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2005 @ 09:31 |
Link to this message
|
old news about Hatch
Senator Hatch Is At It Again
Your Guide, Tony Bradley, CISSP-ISSAP From Tony Bradley, CISSP-ISSAP,
Your Guide to Internet / Network Security.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
History of RIAA Legal Controversy
Senator Orrin G. Hatch a Republican representing the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)...I mean the state of Utah has introduced yet another bill that aims to provide the RIAA and MPAA with draconian legal power to act against technology.
I don't have the investigative experience or resources of a Michael Moore or Greg Palast or I would start doing some digging, but it seems to me that Hatch must be making more money from the RIAA and the MPAA than he does from the Utah taxpayers. He certainly seems to take alleged RIAA violations very "personally" and has battled repeatedly to implement sweeping legislation to censor certain technologies. Maybe he has a brother-in-law that is CEO of Sony or something.
I guess Senator Hatch didn't get around to reading my comments in the article Counter-Hacking: The Sequel in which I said "Senator Hatch can do us all a favor by focusing on what matters to this country and his constituents rather than what gets him the biggest donations from the RIAA and MPAA for his next presidential bid. He would also be doing himself and the country a huge favor if he would actually consult some information security and technology experts before making public statements like the one that sparked this little controversy."
The statement being referred to was Senator Hatch's comment during a June 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on copyright abuse that "If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that. If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" just how serious the government is about protecting copyright.
To begin with, lets take a little look at the history of this battle and past attempts at legislation. While whining and moaning that illegal file sharing is costing them millions of dollars, the RIAA lost a price-fixing case. Actually, the term "lost" is used loosely in this case. It is sort of like when the NFL (National Football League) "lost" the antitrust trial brought against them by the USFL (United States Football League) but were only penalized $1 in damages (no I didn't forget the word "million" or "billion"- they were literally forced to pay one dollar).
The attorneys general of 43 states and territories as well as 3.5 million consumers brought the case against the RIAA for collusion and price fixing to maintain artificially high prices for compact discs. Although an FTC estimate put the loss to consumers at over $480 million (a conservative number by my estimates), the industry was ordered to pay a paltry $143 million in damages and restitution. I personally had nearly 500 compact discs at the time of the suit and would have accounted for thousands of dollars of the overpaid money resulting from the price fixing, but as a result of the settlement I was entitled to receive all of about $12 in damages. Woo hoo! Sure glad I "won" that case.
RIAA Takes On Napster and The P2P Networks
When Napster sprung up and the concept of users forming a peer-to-peer network exploded, the RIAA was quick to blame the illegal downloading of music for a decline in sales. They failed to take into account the fact that their own price-fixing had alienated much of the customer-base or the fact that the entire economy was in a slump making music CD's a low priority for many people when compared with rent or groceries or that consumers might be tired of spending $18 for one good song and a bunch of second-rate filler from their mega-bubble gum pop album du jour. In March of 2004 Felix Oberholzer of the Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill wrote The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales which concluded "If we are correct in arguing that downloading has little effect on the production of music, then file sharing probably increases aggregate welfare. Shifts from sales to downloads are simply transfers between firms and consumers. And while we have argued that file sharing imposes little dynamic cost in terms of future production, it has considerably increased the consumption of recorded music. File sharing lowers the price and allows an apparently large pool of individuals to enjoy music. The sheer magnitude of this activity, the billions of tracks which are downloaded each year, suggests the added social welfare from file sharing is likely to be quite high."
Nevertheless, the music industry not only insisted on ignoring the tremendous marketing value of P2P file sharing and blaming P2P networks for a decline in sales but, as if their "plight" is somehow linked to national security or anti-terrorism, they even went so far as to lobby for exemptions from hacking and computer security laws to be secretly bundled with the PATRIOT Act to allow them to hack systems suspected of P2P file sharing or even initiate denial-of-service attacks against P2P network providers.
When word of that lobbying effort leaked the public backlash forced such measures to be withdrawn, but it didn't stop the lobbying efforts of the RIAA and MPAA from looking for other "creative" ways to deter file sharing. In June of 2003 Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Howard Coble (R-NC) proposed a bill that would exempt copyright holders from anti-hacking laws and shield them from litigation that might result from damage incurred during such hacking and allow them to execute hacking attacks against computer systems as long as they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place.
Jessica Litman, a Wayne State University professor and specialist in copyright law stated in a CNet.com article "I think it's wildly overreaching...copyright owners are in essence asking Congress to say that peer-to-peer file trading is such a scourge, is so bad, that stopping it is more important than enforcing any other laws that federal or state governments may have passed on computer security, privacy, fraud and so forth."
This was followed with the Hatch statement quoted earlier regarding the legality of allowing copyright holders to damage computer systems and by the RIAA beginning a rampage of using provisions of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to compel internet service providers (ISP's) to identify the users associated with IP addresses known to traffic illegal music files and the filing of hundreds of lawsuits against individuals. These lawsuits have been hailed as a success by the RIAA while bringing outrage from many for targeting children like the case of Brianna Lahara, a 12-year old honor student living in a New York Housing Authority apartment who settled for $2,000 last September (the fine was paid for her by a P2P industry group). Shortly after this during a Senate Judiciary committee hearing Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked the RIAA President Cary Sherman “Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?”
Not wanting to be left out of all the fun, the RIAA's motion picture cousin the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was also exerting their lobbying muscle to push legislation. They are credited with authoring the template that has been used in many states to create what have been dubbed Super-DMCA laws. These state-level laws seek to augment and expand upon the federal DMCA law, but the wording of some parts of the legislation is very broad and seemingly makes many computer network and security technologies illegal (see Are You Breaking The Law?).
Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act
I am sure I am missing other proposed bills and attempts at lobbying and legislation in my timeline, but you get the idea. Fast forward now to June of 2004 and we have Senator Orrin Hatch proposing a new bill- the INDUCE (Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation) Act. Basically, past efforts at shutting down P2P networks have been difficult in the face of the precedent-setting 1984 Supreme Court decision in the case of Sony vs. Universal Studios. That decision in essence stated that VCR's were legal because although they had a potential for copyright-infringing uses, their primary use is not copyright-infringing. The bottom line is that the makers of VCR's are not liable for the illegal actions of some VCR users. Similarly, P2P networks are not responsible for the illegal actions of some users who may traffic illegal files on the network.
The INDUCE Act seeks to change that by making it punishable to "intentionally induce any violation" of copyright law. Any person or entity found to aid, abet, induce, counsel or procure a violation of copyright law could be faced with very stiff civil penalties and / or lengthy jail sentences. If passed, this act would effectively override the Supreme Court precedent. I am not sure how you prove that the inducement is "intentional".
In a more recent CNet.com article about the INDUCE Act Jessica Litman said that "under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement."
All of this legal wrangling also ignores the fact that the RIAA is already being compensated for illegal song sharing. After complaining to Congress that CD recording technology would allow users to copy music CD's a royalty was introduced that pays a surcharge to the industry for each recording device and blank media sold. They actually make money when you copy the music.
In the case of Sony, one of the Big 5 companies that make up the RIAA, they are in a particular catch 22. Within Sony there are divisions that produce and distribute both motion pictures and music. They participate in the RIAA and MPAA and rally to fight the illegal downloading and sharing of works that they own the copyright to. However, Sony also has divisions which manufacture CD and DVD recording equipment and blank CD and DVD media. They make equipment like the Network Walkman which is sold for the sheer intent and purpose of playing MP3 files transferred from the Internet or a computer network. They market such products on their ability to "rip" (copy or convert from one format to another) songs faster than competing products. They are providing the very weapons they are trying to fight against.
The Link Between MP3's, P2P and Child Pornography
Losing the public relations battle, the RIAA shamefully resorted to making the battle against P2P networks about child pornography rather than their own profit margins. According to a CNet.com article RIAA President Carey Sherman "cautioned the U.S. Senate that Kazaa could be a tool for adults to lure children into having sex." Carey is credited with saying a pedophile could send "an instant message to the unwitting young person who downloads an Olsen twins or Pokemon file from the pedophile's share folder on Kazaa."
Taking this cue, Hatch has chosen to incorporate the battle against child pornography in his bill to expand the scope and power of the RIAA and MPAA ability to fight P2P file sharing networks. Politically, linking the two issues makes it more difficult for elected officials to vote against the bill. No senator or representative wants to be on record as the person who voted against fighting child pornography.
In the end though, maybe this concept isn't all bad. I mean, rather than waging a war to squash the INDUCE bill maybe we need to expand it to include other "inducers". We can add in clauses to allow people or entities to go after gun manufacturers (inducing homicide), alcohol producers (inducing homicide through DUI), oil companies (inducing poverty and damage to the environment), fast food restaurants (inducing obesity), cigarette companies (inducing both suicide and homicide) and more. Of course, I realize that some have actually already tried suing some of these companies on these or similar grounds, but why not give them a clear cut law to use?
The Carlyle Group might be a good target too. They induce war by virtue of making the weapons and instruments to wage war. The recent conflict has resulted in the death of just under 1,000 American soldiers and 10,000 Iraqi civilians. I would say that the Carlyle Group is just as guilty of those deaths as Kazaa is for the illegal downloading of Britney Spears latest hit.
If you are as appalled by the implications of this proposed bill as I am (especially by linking the obviously biased effort to fight the RIAA's battles with the issue of child pornography) take the time to write or call your Senator or Representative and let them know.
If you live in the state of Utah make sure you take a close look at Hatch's positions on the various issues as well as his actual voting record and really think about whether you want this person representing your state again when his term expires in 2006.
UPDATE: Senator Hatch and his compatriot Senator Leahy must have been inundated with criticism about trying to link their RIAA fight to child pornography. They dropped the acronym for INDUCE (Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act) and changed the name of the bill to simply IICA (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act). Regardless of the bill's name the wording is still too broad and overreaching even if you agree with the intended goal of holding P2P networks liable for the illegal actions of their users.
Another side note is that this seems to be yet another area where there is already legislation on the books that makes the action of inducing copyright infringement illegal (Patent Law Statute 35 U.S.C. s. 271(b)), but whether to provide a more targeted tool for the RIAA and MPAA to use against P2P networks or simply to get their names on the front page and appear productive these distinguished gentleman have chosen to create a separate bill proposing a new law stating essentially the same thing.
http://netsecurity.about.com/od/securitylegislation/a/aa062904.htm
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
allnew2me
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. November 2005 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
The Sony Fiasco: How Far Will the Copyright Holders Go?
Digital Rights Management has been right smack in the middle of the news for the last several weeks, ever since Mark Russinovich ran across a rootkit on his computer and tracked it down to a Sony media player that he'd installed in order to play a Sony music CD. It was part of the XCP DRM software that's supposed to prevent users from making more than a set number of copies of the songs on the CD.
The story hit the mainstream media and the proverbial waste byproducts hit the oscillating instrument as consumers learned that a major record company was introducing a type of software generally regarded as malicious to their systems without their knowledge.
Even the U.S. government got into the act. Stewart Baker, of the Department of Homeland Security, had a statement to representatives of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), one of the foremost defenders of DRM and the force behind all the lawsuits against alleged music pirates - including young children and grandparents who never even used their computers. Baker reminded them that "it's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property - it's not your computer."
You've got to wonder if that came as a shock to the RIAA. Although they are adamant about protecting their property, they seem to think they have every right to invade the privacy of computer users and use those people's property without permission in furtherance of their cause.
Some of our readers wrote to ask exactly what a rootkit is, how they can find out if they have it on their computers, and how to get rid of it if they do. Well, rootkits have traditionally been hacker tools, which can disguise the fact that a system has been compromised.
Luckily, Microsoft has included detection and cleanup of the Sony rootkit in their malicious software removal tool (MSRT), which is updated monthly to handle new threats. Sony has released a service pack to remove the cloaking technology, which you can download at:
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=051122ED-XCP
However, Russinovich cautions that the patch itself can create problems and recommends that you uninstall the software manually. He provides instructions on how to do so in his blog at:
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=051122ED-Uninstall
Experts say the rootkit has probably been installed on at least half a million computers.
Sony, perhaps recognizing what the bad PR can do to their sales, has now issued a recall of the CDs that contain the rootkit technology. This happened after several viruses were discovered that take advantage of the rootkit to hide their own activities. If you have one of the copy protected CDs, you can send it back to Sony and get a new one that doesn't have the rootkit. A list of the albums that contain the XCP technology and instructions on how to get the replacement CD are available here:
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=051122ED-Recall
They've also placed a link on their frontpage providing information about the copy protection technology. And if you bought the CD from Amazon, that company is offering full refunds to customers who purchased the rootkitted CDs from them see:
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=051122ED-Refunds
Here's another thing about the whole thing that bothers me: No one else seems to have brought up the question of whether Sony could possibly be the only company doing this? I suspect it may be that they're just the only one who got caught. Of course, Sony is making sure to spread the blame to the British company that provided them with the DRM software, First 4 Internet. That company, along with Sony, argues that the rootkit doesn't pose a security vulnerability. We do know that Warner Music, Universal and EMI signed up with First 4 Internet for trials of their copy protection.
Some industry pundits have speculated that Sony's merger with BMG may have contributed to the whole fiasco. You can read more on that theory here:
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=051122ED-Merger
Whatever the reasons, I hate to see this happen and I especially hate the way Sony has dragged their feet on taking responsibility and fixing the problem. I say that because, as a consumer, I have a long and good relationship with Sony. We own Sony big screen TVs, Sony home theater systems and Sony Vaio laptop computers. We've had good experiences with all of them.
However, we've heard horror stories about Sony's entertainment divisions before. Best-selling author Dean Koontz has repeatedly recounted his experiences in trying to get his name taken off a movie made by Sony Pictures (and recently got in hot water for the way he told the story). We know that in a company as big as Sony, it's very possible that one hand doesn't always know what the other is doing. We hope the rootkit disaster will be a wakeup call to all music companies and movie studios that all is not fair in love and war and copyright protection.
What do you think? Should Sony take most of the blame for the rootkit, or do you think they were duped by First 4 Internet? Are they unique, or do you think other record companies are doing similar things and just not getting caught? Should users who installed the rootkit be compensated (beyond the exchange for a new non-copy protected CD)? Do you support the lawsuits filed against Sony? Do you support a boycott of Sony products? Or is the whole story just much ado about nothing? Let us know your opinions at feedback@wxpnews.com.
|
|
